Discussion:
Symbolism of personal arms (was: Re: Is somebody compiling a rec.heraldry roll of arms?
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-21 06:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Surfing through rec.heraldry, I found this thread from 1996 or thereabouts. FWIW, I still use these arms; though for my sibling and posterity, I have abandoned the notion of cadency marks within the family (though my brother still has the silver signet ring and full-color armorial mug I gave him decades ago with the crescent).
3ARwun
2018-09-24 23:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Surfing through rec.heraldry, I found this thread from 1996 or thereabouts. FWIW, I still use these arms; though for my sibling and posterity, I have abandoned the notion of cadency marks within the family (though my brother still has the silver signet ring and full-color armorial mug I gave him decades ago with the crescent).
I remember those days. Does the site or mirror site still let new readers post their arms? We could use some young blood and more people, period, around here....
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-27 06:04:03 UTC
Permalink
I think the rec.heraldry Roll of Arms is still functional..
3ARwun
2018-10-09 01:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Surfing through rec.heraldry, I found this thread from 1996 or thereabouts. FWIW, I still use these arms; though for my sibling and posterity, I have abandoned the notion of cadency marks within the family (though my brother still has the silver signet ring and full-color armorial mug I gave him decades ago with the crescent).
Which kind of fits with those who point out that even in England, one of few places that emphasize that "arms belong to people, not family names", the so-called rule is honored more in the breach, than in the observance.
Peter Howarth
2018-10-09 13:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3ARwun
Post by m***@gmail.com
Surfing through rec.heraldry, I found this thread from 1996 or thereabouts. FWIW, I still use these arms; though for my sibling and posterity, I have abandoned the notion of cadency marks within the family (though my brother still has the silver signet ring and full-color armorial mug I gave him decades ago with the crescent).
Which kind of fits with those who point out that even in England, one of few places that emphasize that "arms belong to people, not family names", the so-called rule is honored more in the breach, than in the observance.
I beg to differ. As eldest son and heraldic head of my family, I am entitled to allow my younger brother to bear my coat of arms without difference if I want to. That does not however allow some unrelated Howarth to do the same. My arms are personal and do not belong to the family name. I may decide how they should be used. But I’m not sure how I would defend them -- perhaps under the common law tort of passing off, even if the Court of Chivalry has fallen into desuetude.

As a matter of interest, one of the earliest grants of arms by a herald, one by Roger Leigh, Clarenceux, was made in 1440 to the grantee himself, his heirs, “and his assigns” (Wagner, ‘Heralds and Heraldry’ (1956) p 74).

Peter Howarth
3ARwun
2018-10-13 04:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
I beg to differ.
no need to beg, Americans respect the right of people to have a different opinion.
Post by Peter Howarth
As eldest son and heraldic head of my family, I am entitled to allow my younger brother to bear my coat of arms without difference if I want to. I may decide how they should be used.
And if you did, without insisting on a cadency mark, you would be example number two, as McCartney was example number one, above.
Post by Peter Howarth
As a matter of interest, one of the earliest grants of arms by a herald, one by Roger Leigh, Clarenceux, was made in 1440 to the grantee himself, his heirs, “and his assigns” (Wagner, ‘Heralds and Heraldry’ (1956) p 74).
and that would possibly be example number three. (thank you for that, btw, I was unaware of the Clarenceux example and found it interesting.) Another example of an armigerous family refusing to insist on cadency marks is found on http://powys.org/Heraldry/family_arms.html making example number four.
Post by Peter Howarth
But I’m not sure how I would defend them -- perhaps under the common law tort of passing off, even if the Court of Chivalry has fallen into desuetude.
That would be an interesting case, which many would like to see. I would actually wish you success in such an endeavor. Interestingly, McCartney might would have more legal rights, and ability to enforce them, because of the protections he has in his region of the US. Ironic, and interesting.
n***@gmail.com
2018-10-11 00:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3ARwun
Post by m***@gmail.com
Surfing through rec.heraldry, I found this thread from 1996 or thereabouts. FWIW, I still use these arms; though for my sibling and posterity, I have abandoned the notion of cadency marks within the family (though my brother still has the silver signet ring and full-color armorial mug I gave him decades ago with the crescent).
Which kind of fits with those who point out that even in England, one of few places that emphasize that
"arms belong to people, not family names", the so-called rule is honored more in the breach, than in the
observance.
In most systems all descendants of the armiger can use the CoA, but entire names? Even the local equivalent of Smith?

Don't think anybody did that.

Nick
Loading...